first, we'd like to applaud "veronica" and "bahama" for their comments. right on for illustrating the possibilities of a partnership model!
but the main question the blog raises is this: with all the things black folks have to work through in their intimate relationships - from within and without - is operating within these rigid gender roles really the ultimate way to repair our hearts and homes, particularly when those roles are not necessarily reflective of our original culture, values and history?
in this 21st century world where women are {blessedly} able to educate themselves to their heart's delight and pursue their ambitions while single or partnered, is it a bad thing that we need more in a partner/mate than the ability to bring home the bacon and "wear the pants"? why aren't men doing more questioning around who they were taught to be?
furthermore, when entering what we hope is meant to be an egalitarian, intimate relationship between two consenting adults, why are we ever concerned with who's leading who instead of discerning who has the necessary skills, gifts and life experience in a particular area, and working out their lives around that?
in case you missed the memo, sexism hurts us all.
when we subscribe to these sorts of rules, standards, and assumptions without question - and, even accounting for humor, the level of assumption here is simply astounding - followed by disdain for those who question that acceptance, we turn women into barefoot, pregnant portraits of intellectual and emotional frustration destined to couple with preening, self-important peacocks of men convinced they have the right to the big piece of chicken {we kid} and to rule with an iron fist {not so funny}.
wouldn't it be a joy to couple with a focus on aligning minds, hearts and destinies? what would happen if we were allowed to be our whole selves, regardless of gender?
why not a world with nurturing, intellectually brilliant working mothers who will raise equally brilliant babies? and there's certainly nothing wrong with a man who can routinely cook, clean, change a diaper and still put a righteous cap in someone's ass for stepping to his fam.
now, we are not denying that men and women are different. however, we do question the way these differences have been upheld and reinforced in societal contexts to the detriment of women and children, the unearned privilege inherent in maleness and masculine identification, and the artificial imposition of these {largely western european} norms on people of african descent.
beloveds: do what works for you. know what you need. learn to be the best partner you can be. how much of a "woman" or "man" you are in the eyes of a culture with a dysfunctional lens in such matters should be the least of your worries.
if we can let the arbitrary notions go, maybe we'll all get a little closer to the love we deserve and make the world a little better in the process.
*considering all the recent lamentations around the state of black womanhood and the dismal prospects for {a particular definition of} black love in general, this
**this is not a blog we frequent, so this commentary isn't meant to be a damning indictment of all their content. e.g., a quick search yielded this, so obviously the brothas have a sense of humor about themselves, too {questionable criteria for the "simp" and the "effeminate" notwithstanding...}.
2 comments:
I don't think that the intention of the post was to suggest that "it['s] a bad thing that we need more in a partner/mate than the ability to bring home the bacon and "wear the pants"?". I think the intention was to convey - from a man's perspective - what goes through a man's mind when a woman makes certain statements.
I will agree that there are a lot of assumptions in the post and its comments. However I think that equating traditional gender roles with sexism is no less of an assumption. Is it impossible for two people to come together “with a focus on aligning minds, hearts and destinies" if the man is the head of the house? I don't see why not; if it's the kind of relationship both partners want.
The fact of the matter is that traditional gender roles currently exist in our society. For better or for worse, many women still “want a man to be a man” and many men “want to feel like a man”. It may be arbitrary, but no less so than assuming we can throw away all that socialization overnight.
greetings!
However I think that equating traditional gender roles with sexism is no less of an assumption.
the intent is not to equate "traditional" with sexist, only to detail that it's good to question those roles. we cannot forget to ask questions like, "traditional for who & when?"
Is it impossible for two people to come together “with a focus on aligning minds, hearts and destinies" if the man is the head of the house?
a statement like "man is the head of the house" is precisely the kind of language/idea i'd like folks to examine and unpack. what does that mean? why is that kind of hierarchy/language the ideal in the first place? that's why this (http://soaw.org/article.php?id=1153) is such a powerful document.
...many women still “want a man to be a man” and many men “want to feel like a man”. It may be arbitrary, but no less so than assuming we can throw away all that socialization overnight.
again: what are those definitions of manhood and womanhood? who do they benefit? what happens when they break down?
more examination & unpacking.
to be sure, any "deprogramming" is a process. it doesn't happen overnight, and nothing here is meant to imply that this kind of work doesn't take time.
thanks for reading...come by again!
peace
Post a Comment